The New York Times (paper of record, you know) had an article on size-ism this week called "Big People on Campus"mostly about the discrimination that those who are obese suffer on college campuses. As the other roommate pointed out, the article does not really address the fact that you can be as "body-positive" as you want, obesity is a health risk. Laura B of Bumblebees and Manatees had a different concern, also echoed by the other roommate:
whenever the Times publishes any kind of article dealing with anything that smacks of feminism, legitimate social concerns involving women, or even MEDICAL or SCIENTIFIC studies involving women, they always publish it in the Fashion & Style section. Way to go, guys. Let's trivialize any subject that holds valid interest for women by classifying it as nonessential information on par with where mid-level celebrities had lunch yesterday and why men's dressy shorts are sure to become a blazing hit on Wall Street next season.
The Slate, a Washington Post partner, in its "Explainer" section talks about the links between food and sex vis a vis evolution. In an article called "Girth Control" William Saletan talks about "food and sex without the consequences." He says that Birth Control pills have allowed people to have sex (which is enjoyable so that we will do it and procrate) without the natural consequence of childbirth, why should we not be able to eat fatty, sweet, salty foods (enjoyable so that we can build up fat) without the natural consequence of becoming fat? Saletan suggests that we are none too far from that goal where we can just take a pill and eat whatever we want. Figleaf of Figleaf's Real Adult Sex disapproves of Saletan's tone, he says that "Saletan sees both pregnancy and obesity as consequences of having too much "fun." Lisa V of Vindauga isn't a fan, but for a different reason, she claims that birth control "scares [her]" but at the same time wants a "vasectomy for the stomach." I was under the impression that gastric bypass surgery was fairly close to the second, albeit with more complications.
In conclusion? My roommates and I, instead of dieting, are all doing Yoga/Pilates in our living room every evening. If you know where we live you are welcome to join in the absolute ridiculousness that is my apartment.
We look something like this, only sillier.
7 comments:
"Big People on Campus" isn't so much about the discrimination obese people suffer on college campuses, but about the fact that Fat Studies is emerging as a sister discipline to queer/gender/ethnic studies. I think the real issue is whether academic resources should be devoted to "Fat Studies." Proponents of Fat Studies have an explicit political agenda: they believe that one of the purposes of the discipline should be to combat discrimination against fat people. (They also think that scientific research about the health dangers of obesity is shaped by society's bias against fat people.) I do not think that Fat Studies is a legitimate academic discipline, for three main reasons:
1) Its primary concern seems to be political activism rather than sound scholarship.
2) It's actually anti-intellectual insofar as it attempts to disparage scientific research that undermines its political agenda. It makes sweeping assertions about science, but does nothing to back up those assertions.
3) It would take away valuable resources from departments that are working on, say, curing cancer.
IMHO,
The Rooster
1) Its primary concern seems to be political activism rather than sound scholarship.
2) It's actually anti-intellectual insofar as it attempts to disparage scientific research that undermines its political agenda. It makes sweeping assertions about science, but does nothing to back up those assertions.
3) It would take away valuable resources from departments that are working on, say, curing cancer.
Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't someone say the same exact thing about queer/gender/ethnic studies?
A few other points:
- Although the health risks of obesity are well-documented, some recent research shows that general fitness level may matter more. Which is to say: a slim couch potato might be more at risk than an overweight person who goes to the gym regularly but just can't seem to lose the fat. Part of the problem is that few of the studies done on the health risks of obesity have controlled for general fitness level. Of course, there is a strong correlation between obesity and bad fitness; but that does not mean the two are interchangeable.
-The social stigma attached to obesity is a double-edged sword. If it pushes people to anorexia/bulimia or ravages a person's sense of self worth, it's clearly bad. But if it motivates a person to live a healthier lifestyle and thereby add years to their life, it's a good thing. Peer pressure can *sometimes* produce positive results.
For the record, I tend to agree with you, The Rooster.
Annie, the parallel with birth control is an interesting one. What happens when we do develop a pill that allows us to eat to our taste buds' content and not gain a pound? What does this do to our perception of the world around us, when physical pleasures can be consumed ceaselessly and without consequence?
-LT
IMHO, there are two primary types of "fatness".
1. Obesity, the unhealthy type, epitomized by fast-food-gorging, cheap-beer-guzzling, car-driving, rolls-of-blubber-hanging Americans.
2. Voluptousness, or what is referred to in Yiddish as "Zaftig". Perfectly healthy, entirely natural, and in fact quite sexy; but demonized by the fascion, diet, and medical industries.
Da boys wrote: "Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't someone say the same exact thing about queer/gender/ethnic studies?"
Yes, it could be said. But you are not playing devil's advocate with me by saying that. I believe that these disciplines are guilty of extremely poor scholarship, and have contributed very little to academia since their inception.
-TR
Mea culpa: I didn't mean to include ethnic studies departments with queer/gender studies.
-TR
Hmm... I guess I'll have to try harder at playing devil's advocate. ;-)
Yes, it could be said. But you are not playing devil's advocate with me by saying that. I believe that these disciplines are guilty of extremely poor scholarship, and have contributed very little to academia since their inception.
Mea culpa: I didn't mean to include ethnic studies departments with queer/gender studies.
It is difficult to separate out the actual scholarship from the politically motivated pseudo-scholarship. For example, there are pockets of bad scholarship in Jewish Studies, Ethnic Studies, Queer Studies, etc. - just as there are pockets of good scholarship in all of the above disciplines.
Of course, some fields tend more towards rigorousness and valid, reasoned study than political activism. Certainly Jewish and ethnic studies have contributed more to the academic world than some of the other disciplines discussed.
But perhaps what we should be railing against is politically-motivated scholarship itself as opposed to the fields in which that might be prevalent.
-LT
Having had a vasectomy and watched several acquaintances go through the consequences of gastric bypass and/or that stapling thing the differences are vast, vast, vast!
A vasectomy is over in 15 minutes, often with just a topical anesthetic, and then you sit around with an ice pack in your lap and a little bruising. Gastric bypasses are... intense. No comparison, really.
Caio,
figleaf
Post a Comment